[ExI] battle tanks to a five yr old

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Tue May 8 15:53:00 UTC 2012

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> But the issue here is why children at least in the West tend to play less
> with toy weapons and battle game (and perhaps run nothing else than wargames
> on their consoles).

Nation on nation war is clearly going out of style. It's bad for
business. The cost of WWI and WWII are so widely known, that public
support for such conflict is very hard to come by. Asymmetric warfare,
on the other hand, is alive and well. In fact, it is probably going to
grow. The thing that really confuses me is that while there seems to
be a lot of 60s-like behavior today, there haven't been all that many
assassinations (or even attempts) in recent years. Assassination is
the ultimate in asymmetric warfare. You can't tell me there weren't
people in the world that wanted to see president Bush eat dirt. Same
for the current, or any imaginable, administration.

With weapons like the new long range Barrett rifles, why wouldn't
every nut job on the planet be gunning for someone they didn't like?

So my question is, why in this age of suicide killings (think both the
terrorists and the high school shooters) aren't there crazy people
gunning for the big boys?

I want it to be totally clear that I am not advocating for
assassination of anyone at any time. I'm just asking the question, in
the same sense as the Fermi paradox... the trends would seem to
indicate that it would be an increasing trend, while the ground truth
seems to be that it is a decreasing trend. Why do you suppose that is
the case?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list